Why we should care about the Hobby Lobby result

berzirk

berzirk

CAGiversary!
Feedback
2 (100%)
http://news.msn.com/us/justices-cant-make-employers-cover-contraception?ocid=ansnews11

I'm actually not entirely sure.  As you can imagine, a great deal of outrage and spin has come out of it (stating that all birth control is excluded, when it actually appears to only apply to morning after-style contraceptives), the usual "government is infringing on our bodies and what we can do with them" complaint (yes, government does that all the time, why are left leaning commentators outraged this time?), and lastly the affront that implies that the separation between church and state doesn't exist (it doesn't. Why does it chap you this time?).

But above all that, why shouldn't an employer be able to not cover something that goes against management's beliefs?  My boss refuses to allow people who's cars leak oil to park in the company parking lot. You can park in the street, get your car fixed/get a new one, or find a new job.  Not great for employee morale, but it's his prerogative as the majority owner.

The additional argument in this one is that a bunch of minimum wage earners are now going to be without post fertilization birth control, but of course that's also false, because in reality they probably qualify for free care from Planned Parenthood or other clinics.

I understand people are concerned about precedent, but a lot of folks are irate over this specific judgment, and I'm not all that clear why. Folks?

 
The Supreme Court of recent years haven't been exactly considerate of the consequences of their actions.

Asides from denying women their rights to get safe health care which can be done with contraception. If Scalia says that the government will pay for women's health care, I'd like to see that happen. But that would piss off the right for allowing socialized health care.

The biggest worry about this decision is how it will allow business practices to be influenced by religion or the "appearance of it." Just like in Mother Russia. This can range from being fired for divorcing your spouse, or you don't deserve a lunch break as it's Ramadan, even an exception to minimum wage. I await the sh-storm that will arise!

 
If those damn filthy slutty whores don't want babies, then they shouldn't be fuckin.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seriously though, the decision is basically the same type of slippery slope trolls on vs. because it comes down to the mere possibility of getting those things covered by PPACA means that employees of those companies that choose to apply for that exemption aren't having their rights infringed upon by said employer. Adding that provision is halted by the political reality of a conservative Congress, which de facto infringes on said employees rights, one might say? Well, tough for you!
 
dohdough said:
Please elaborate on the functioning of your plumbing. Be as detailed and specific as possible. TIA!

No, my hands will not be in my pants as I read your response. Why do you ask?
Click to expand...
Well, I start with my nipples, then work up to light fing....wait....what? Are you trying to make me get you off! For shame. I will NOT touch your Hobby Knobby!

 
All I know is that the Supreme Court is the ultimate decider when it comes to what is Constitutional and what is not, so if this is what they say, then it's obviously right and no one here has any right to second guess them.
 
According to religious teachings and indoctrination a supernatural man who goes by the name of Jesus was suppose to cure all ills and sickness with a touch of the hand...

So these businesses should deny all forms of medical treatment because only a man with a mysterious touch can cure people, so it goes against their religious belief that they should pay for any human doctors or pills since the bible states only a man/god by the name of Jesus can cure illnesses.

Maybe they can force all their employees to see doctors who only name is Jesus

Maybe when a Muslim company start forcing their female employees to cover up, I bet those Christian nutjobs and conservatives will be all for women rights and how dare a company use religion to mandate work policies.... 

But conservatives or Christian are hypocrites.... NEVER thats blasphemy

 
But hey maybe when stupid shit like Hobby Lobby and corporate rights and gay marriage and other dumb shit that continue this right / left conservative / liberal outrages...  Maybe those old geezers in black robes have time to actually care about what really matters...

Do the gov't have the authority to continue its wide spread surveillance programs

 
detectiveconan16 said:
Asides from denying women their rights to get safe health care which can be done with contraception.
Click to expand...
Eh, this is my problem. No one is denying anyone their rights. If you want to argue that it makes it more difficult for a woman to afford it, then you have a point. But this ruling has not denied any woman the right to anything. They can still legally obtain it without jumping through any additional hoops, other than having to pay for it themselves.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This won't apply to the good companies like Disney or Viacom. They are very tolerant and support everything and everybody.
 
detectiveconan16 said:
Asides from denying women their rights to get safe health care which can be done with contraception.
Click to expand...
Da fuck lol? Go to walmart/target/planned parenthood and get your shit taken care of if you didn't wrap it. I don't understand why people think that birth control/morning after pill is some god given right.

This has nothing to do with woman's rights or telling them what they can or can't do with their body. Go repeat your talking points elsewhere lad.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Syntax Error said:
So... it's like essentially everything else that has to do with health and medical care? Fascinating.
Click to expand...
Lets ignore the legal part at the moment. Would you say that companies should be responsible for their employees' healthcare? Should they be forced?

Or since you want to talk about health and medicare care then why stop at birth control? Why not do free dental, eyecare, massages and etc.

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
Lets ignore the legal part at the moment. Would you say that companies should be responsible for their employees' healthcare? Should they be forced?

Or since you want to talk about health and medicare care then why stop at birth control? Why not do free dental, eyecare, massages and etc.
Click to expand...
I'd prefer we had a single payer system but, since we don't, I'm okay with employer-mandated insurance.

Birth control (at least the stuff under debate here) is a prescription medicine which is something generally covered under health insurance. The question isn't "why stop at birth control?", it's "why exclude this single class of physician-prescribed medications?" I haven't heard a good reason for that yet.

Anyway, your quote was stupid and ill-informed because employers pay for all manner of health services via insurance and none of it is their business. We actually have legal protections in place specifically to shield it from being their business. Nothing special about contraceptives in that regard. Whoever Julie Borowski is, she doesn't sound especially intelligent.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Syntax Error said:
I'd prefer we had a single payer system but, since we don't, I'm okay with employer-mandated insurance.

Birth control (at least the stuff under debate here) is a prescription medicine which is something generally covered under health insurance. The question isn't "why stop at birth control?", it's "why exclude this single class of physician-prescribed medications?" I haven't heard a good reason for that yet.

Anyway, your quote was stupid and ill-informed because employers pay for all manner of health services via insurance and none of it is their business. We actually have legal protections in place specifically to shield it from being their business. Nothing special about contraceptives in that regard. Whoever Julie Borowski is, she doesn't sound especially intelligent.
Click to expand...
Well the simple answer is religious rights. I myself, am an atheist and do not care what these people believe in, but I will respect their decision. The whole point of this court case was that these private corporations which are run by select people have a say in healthcare and drugs provided. If it is a type of birth control of which they disapprove of then why should they be forced to pay for them? No one is making these females give up the pills, they just have to find a way to get them somewhere else. This therefore does not breach upon their rights like the crazy leftists are claiming. Nor does it breach upon the rights of these private companies.

As I said, why not include other things such as eyecare, dental and massages? Why not include free oil changes and employer mandated happy hours? Happiness after all affects the healthcare.

So you might say the quote was stupid, I do not. I do not think its reasonable to involve one side into your business and not expect a conflict if its against their wishes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Syntax Error said:
I'd prefer we had a single payer system but, since we don't, I'm okay with employer-mandated insurance.

Birth control (at least the stuff under debate here) is a prescription medicine which is something generally covered under health insurance. The question isn't "why stop at birth control?", it's "why exclude this single class of physician-prescribed medications?" I haven't heard a good reason for that yet.

Anyway, your quote was stupid and ill-informed because employers pay for all manner of health services via insurance and none of it is their business. We actually have legal protections in place specifically to shield it from being their business. Nothing special about contraceptives in that regard. Whoever Julie Borowski is, she doesn't sound especially intelligent.
Click to expand...
Most Birth Control (morning after), is elective correct? Do employers typically pay for elective surgery?

I would be okay with employer's paying for sterilization though.

But I mean because contraceptives are sooooooooooooooooo expensive.... wait... nevermind.

 
How often do you need the morning after pill, anyway? It's like 30-50 bucks, and if you can afford to have sex you can afford this if you need it.

I would be really ashamed to go get it though. But these days I'm sure there are some women who are popping them every other week.
 
Its funny that birth control is whats argued about from a company's responsibility.

Then why should the company's health insurance covers your spouses and kids?  I mean why are they paying for someone else's health care when those individuals don't even work for the company...

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
Well the simple answer is religious rights.
Click to expand...
Ok, let's go with that. I disagree with their decision but their decisions matter more than my opinion. But they didn't rule based on "But then why not oil changes?!", they ruled because the potential of paying for this specific medicine violated those religious beliefs. "Why not oil changes" is as poor an argument for birth control as it is for setting a broken arm or prescribing amoxicillin. Birth control should be covered because it's a prescription medicine ordered under a physician's recommendation. The other things you listed are not. Although it wouldn't bother me at all to see vision and dental placed under the general healthcare umbrella. Massages relating to rehabilitation are, in fact, potentially covered.

GBAstar said:
Most Birth Control (morning after), is elective correct? Do employers typically pay for elective surgery?
Click to expand...
When it directly relates to medical issues? All the time. Getting a wart removed is elective. A vasectomy is elective. Breast reduction is elective. All things typically covered. I think you mistakenly meant to compare it to cosmetic surgery but it's not in that family at all.

Spokker said:
How often do you need the morning after pill, anyway? It's like 30-50 bucks
Click to expand...
And amoxicillian is like five bucks and you shouldn't be needing it often either. So what?

 
Syntax Error said:
Syntax Error said:
When it directly relates to medical issues? All the time. Getting a wart removed is elective. A vasectomy is elective. Breast reduction is elective. All things typically covered. I think you mistakenly meant to compare it to cosmetic surgery but it's not in that family at all.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
You must not pay for your own insurance, if you did you'd know that most of that comes out of your own pocket if you go that route.

Syntax Error said:
And amoxicillian is like five bucks and you shouldn't be needing it often either. So what?
Click to expand...
Typically you don't have a penis fall into a vagina accidentally. I'm thinking comparing bacteria fighting medication to the morning after pill does not compute.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
irideabike said:
You must not pay for your own insurance, if you did you'd know that most of that comes out of your own pocket if you go that route.
Click to expand...
I must have much better insurance than you do because I've never paid largely out of pocket for that sort of thing. Maybe you need a better plan or a better job.

 
I blame the pharmaceutical industry for this ruling. Their continued disregard for the male contraceptives market is sickening and is directly responsible for the issues we face today. Never mind the fact that it hurts their bottom line. A pill for men is the way to go. No way Scalia or Thomas would vote against covering male contraceptives. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
irideabike said:
Typically you don't have a penis fall into a vagina accidentally. I'm thinking comparing bacteria fighting medication to the morning after pill does not compute.
Click to expand...
I love how the rationale here keeps shifting. I was responding the notion that we shouldn't worry about covering the morning after pill because it was inexpensive and infrequent. Many medications covered by insurance are relatively inexpensive and used infrequently. Uh oh! Better hurry up and change the argument! "Well... uhhh... sex is voluntary!!" That may be but the pregnancy itself was most likely accidental. So any time you require medical care or medication following some voluntary activity, health insurance shouldn't cover it? :whistle2:k

 
Finger_Shocker said:
Its funny that birth control is whats argued about from a company's responsibility.

Then why should the company's health insurance covers your spouses and kids? I mean why are they paying for someone else's health care when those individuals don't even work for the company...
Click to expand...
It is increasingly uncommon for employers to cover spouses and family members. It's the continued cutting back of benefits because healthcare has become so expensive, and the job market is competitive enough, they don't need to lure people in with excellent benefits. If you don't accept, there's a line of 100 other people who will.

 
Syntax Error said:
And amoxicillian is like five bucks and you shouldn't be needing it often either. So what?
Click to expand...
I would agree with that.

Car insurance doesn't cover the oil in my car. It's not worth submitting a claim for a fix that touch-up paint could handle.

For insurance to be insurance, it should cover events on the level of heart attacks, not minor things.

 
Perhaps.  However, today's healthcare industry is designed around insurance.  Maybe it would be better if that wasn't the case but unless someone has a plan to dismantle it, I don't see where "maybe" really helps things.

Even experiments in cash-based minor care wound up failing.  About 8-10 years ago, a bunch of places started opening clinics with nurse practitioners (at Walgreens, CVS, Walmart, etc) on a "cash only" (really, just non-insurance) basis.  The idea being that they would be cheaper by only taking immediate direct payment.  Within another five years, they almost all changed to taking insurance.  I think the clinics at Meijers are the only exception in my area and I haven't actually checked in a couple years.  But obviously "cash & carry" wasn't working for them as a business model to stay competitive and profitable.

 
Spokker said:
I would agree with that.

Car insurance doesn't cover the oil in my car. It's not worth submitting a claim for a fix that touch-up paint could handle.

For insurance to be insurance, it should cover events on the level of heart attacks, not minor things.
Click to expand...
Yep, unfortunately people are not like cars nor is health insurance priced in the same manner as car insurance.

Syntax Error said:
Perhaps. However, today's healthcare industry is designed around insurance. Maybe it would be better if that wasn't the case but unless someone has a plan to dismantle it, I don't see where "maybe" really helps things.

Even experiments in cash-based minor care wound up failing. About 8-10 years ago, a bunch of places started opening clinics with nurse practitioners (at Walgreens, CVS, Walmart, etc) on a "cash only" (really, just non-insurance) basis. The idea being that they would be cheaper by only taking immediate direct payment. Within another five years, they almost all changed to taking insurance. I think the clinics at Meijers are the only exception in my area and I haven't actually checked in a couple years. But obviously "cash & carry" wasn't working for them as a business model to stay competitive and profitable.
Click to expand...
The problem is not only the cost of medical visits but also the cost of treatment. Medication is still outrageously expensive if it isn't subsidized by insurance. Not to beat a dead horse but we desperately need to switch to a single payer system.

 
Don't expect the gov't to ever do something that actually works, if things worked we wouldn't need politicians..

The worst thing for a politician is when there is nothing to argue over and they get no media attention

These self-serving jackasses are actually making us worst off..

I'm pretty sure if it was a Islam runned company, the Supreme Court would rule the opposite.

 
[quote name="berzirk" post="11890338" timestamp="1404345965"]Meh, I think you're both wrong. We just need people to use the 100% effective "pull out method". Google it with safe search turned off if you don't know what that is.[/quote]

Pretty good but still inferior to sodomy.
 
Syntax Error said:
Ok, let's go with that. I disagree with their decision but their decisions matter more than my opinion. But they didn't rule based on "But then why not oil changes?!", they ruled because the potential of paying for this specific medicine violated those religious beliefs. "Why not oil changes" is as poor an argument for birth control as it is for setting a broken arm or prescribing amoxicillin. Birth control should be covered because it's a prescription medicine ordered under a physician's recommendation. The other things you listed are not. Although it wouldn't bother me at all to see vision and dental placed under the general healthcare umbrella. Massages relating to rehabilitation are, in fact, potentially covered.
Click to expand...
You are right. They ruled based on the religious rights and the mandate breached those rights, something that can not be argued against.

Oil changes is used as an extreme example of something that is unnecessary. Birth control pills may be prescribed and yet can be easily avoided. By forcing them to be included you are not just breaching those religious rights but also driving up the cost of the insurance, turning it into a health plan. Proper insurance provides protections against an unfortunate event.

Syntax Error said:
I love how the rationale here keeps shifting. I was responding the notion that we shouldn't worry about covering the morning after pill because it was inexpensive and infrequent. Many medications covered by insurance are relatively inexpensive and used infrequently. Uh oh! Better hurry up and change the argument! "Well... uhhh... sex is voluntary!!" That may be but the pregnancy itself was most likely accidental. So any time you require medical care or medication following some voluntary activity, health insurance shouldn't cover it? :whistle2:k
Click to expand...
I will stick to your notion. You say it should be covered because its inexpensive just like many other things but apply that comparison to car insurance by including oil changes, car washes and air fresheners. Would the premiums rise? Pregnancy most likely accidental? Do you think all those people visiting planned parenthood are getting pregnant accidentally?

 
Spokker said:
Tying health insurance to employment is the first problem.

Good article on the subject: http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorburrus/2014/07/01/hobby-lobby-contraception-and-the-primitivism-of-politics/
Click to expand...
To be fair, it made perfect sense when it was first implemented during WWII. The failure lies with the generations that followed. Instead of fixing a hemorrhaging healthcare system we chose to put a bandaid on it. So what we face today is the result of 40 years of neglect and back room deals.

I know I gave a tongue in cheek response earlier in saying that pharmaceutical companies are to blame but really when it comes to the issue of birth control it is always one sided. How come we haven't developed a male birth control pill? The vast majority of us hate wearing condoms so it seems to me that a pill would be an elegant solution.

P.S. I'm not condoning not wearing condoms. Condoms reduce the risk of contracting HIV and STDs if used correctly.

 
kill3r7 said:
To be fair, it made perfect sense when it was first implemented during WWII. The failure lies with the generations that followed. Instead of fixing a hemorrhaging healthcare system we chose to put a bandaid on it. So what we face today is the result of 40 years of neglect and back room deals.

I know I gave a tongue in cheek response earlier in saying that pharmaceutical companies are to blame but really when it comes to the issue of birth control it is always one sided. How come we haven't developed a male birth control pill? All of us hate wearing condoms so it seems to me that a pill would be an elegant solution.

P.S. I'm not condoning not wearing condoms. Condoms reduce the risk of contracting HIV and STDs if used correctly.
Click to expand...
Bareback FTW.

FTFY as well.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
mrsilkunderwear said:
You are right. They ruled based on the religious rights and the mandate breached those rights, something that can not be argued against.
Click to expand...
Technically, they ruled based on existing statute -- that the provision in the ACA violated the previous provision in the RFRA. They didn't base it on a broad interpretation of the First Amendment, they based it its violation of the RFRA.

By forcing them to be included you are not just breaching those religious rights but also driving up the cost of the insurance, turning it into a health plan.
Click to expand...
Contraception lowers the overall cost of an insurance plan. You need to cover a whole lot of pills to cover the cost of a single childbirth.

Do you think all those people visiting planned parenthood are getting pregnant accidentally?
Click to expand...
Wait... you think they're getting pregnant intentionally? Just, you know, for something to do? I could see someone making this argument if they were going on some inane "Welfare Queen" rant or something but you're actually under the impression that people are intentionally getting pregnant just for the joy of then getting the morning after pill? Well, hard to argue against that...

 
Wouldn't having less kids saves a company more money in insurance cost... from a monetary point of view.

Can someone have enough kids to bankrupt a company's insurance policy...lol

And if someone is working as a Hobby Lobby employee they definitely aren't making enough to support any children, so the wise thing is to keep them from having kids.

 
Finger_Shocker said:
Wouldn't having less kids saves a company more money in insurance cost... from a monetary point of view.
Click to expand...
Our second child cost $35,000 just for the actual birth (hospital, C-section). That's not counting all the pre-birth visits, sonograms, etc nor the post-natal checkups. All told, the act of popping a new person out probably ran the insurance company around $40-$45,000. Of which we paid maybe a thousand out of pocket, total. Trust me, they would love for all the ladies to take cheap birth control pills instead.

My (elective!) vasectomy including general anesthesia -- which always runs a mint -- cost me something like $200 out of pocket from initial consultation to, erm, "final exam". The insurance company was more than happy to pick up the rest even though it was completely elective surgery. Hrm, I wonder why that is :whistle2:k

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top